Cited by 5Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials Sciencevaccines and immunoinformatics approaches

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Large Language Model Agent for Modular Task Execution in Drug Discovery

Open access
Ock, Janghoon, Meda, Radheesh Sharma, Badrinarayanan, Srivathsan, Aluru, Neha S., Chandrasekhar, Achuth, Barati Farimani, Amir·2026·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

We present a modular framework powered by large language models (LLMs) that automates and streamlines key tasks across the early stage computational drug discovery pipeline. By combining LLM reasoning with domain-specific tools, the framework performs biomedical data retrieval, literature-grounded question answering via retrieval-augmented generation, molecular generation, multiproperty prediction, property-aware molecular refinement, and 3D protein-ligand structure generation. The agent autonomously retrieves relevant biomolecular information, including FASTA sequences, SMILES representations, and literature, and answers mechanistic questions with improved contextual accuracy compared to standard LLMs. It then generates chemically diverse seed molecules and predicted 75 properties, including ADMET-related and general physicochemical descriptors, which guids iterative molecular refinement. Across two refinement rounds, the number of molecules with QED >0.6 increased from 34 to 55. The number of molecules satisfying empirical drug-likeness filters also rose; for example, compliance with the Ghose filter increased from 32 to 55 within a pool of 100 molecules. The framework also employed Boltz-2 to generate 3D protein-ligand complexes and provide rapid binding affinity estimates for candidate compounds. These results demonstrate that the approach effectively supports molecular screening, prioritization, and structure evaluation. Its modular design enables flexible integration of evolving tools and models, providing a scalable foundation for AI-assisted therapeutic discovery.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c02454

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

1 AgentD overview. (a) Task modules supported by AgentD. In question-answering and molecular-refinement tasks, outputs are generated directly by the language model, while other tasks rely on external computational tools for final results. (b) Workflow illustrating how each task module contributes to the overall drug discovery pipeline.
1 AgentD overview. (a) Task modules supported by AgentD. In question-answering and molecular-refinement tasks, outputs are generated directly by the language model, while other tasks rely on external computational tools for final results. (b) Workflow illustrating how each task module contributes to the overall drug discovery pipeline.CC BY · PubMed Central
2 Examples of data extraction. Given a user query specifying a target protein and associated disease, AgentD retrieves the protein’s FASTA sequence and identifies known drug molecules relevant to the query. (a) BCL-2 for lymphocytic leukemia, (b) JAK-2 for myelofibrosis, and (c) thrombin for thrombosis.
2 Examples of data extraction. Given a user query specifying a target protein and associated disease, AgentD retrieves the protein’s FASTA sequence and identifies known drug molecules relevant to the query. (a) BCL-2 for lymphocytic leukemia, (b) JAK-2 for myelofibrosis, and (c) thrombin for thrombosis.CC BY · PubMed Central
3 Comparison of question-answering performance between AgentD with RAG and the Vanilla GPT-4o model. Green highlights indicate grounded, context-relevant information supported by the reference paper, while gray highlights denote generic content not directly related to the question. (a) Mechanism of ABT-199/venetoclax synergy with proteasome inhibitors. (b) Effect of ABT-199–induced integrated stress response on NOXA expression.
3 Comparison of question-answering performance between AgentD with RAG and the Vanilla GPT-4o model. Green highlights indicate grounded, context-relevant information supported by the reference paper, while gray highlights denote generic content not directly related to the question. (a) Mechanism of ABT-199/venetoclax synergy with proteasome inhibitors. (b) Effect of ABT-199–induced integrated stress response on NOXA expression.CC BY · PubMed Central
4 t-SNE visualization of chemical space, based on Mordred-derived molecular descriptors, including seed molecules generated by AgentD (Mol2Mol, REINVENT), refined molecules after property-aware optimization, 5,000 randomly sampled compounds from ChEMBL, and the reference drug venetoclax.
4 t-SNE visualization of chemical space, based on Mordred-derived molecular descriptors, including seed molecules generated by AgentD (Mol2Mol, REINVENT), refined molecules after property-aware optimization, 5,000 randomly sampled compounds from ChEMBL, and the reference drug venetoclax.CC BY · PubMed Central
5 Property-aware molecular refinements by AgentD. (a) Iterative changes improve permeability. (b) An unintended modification leads to improved permeability. (c) An intended modification fails to improve permeability. (d) Iterative changes improve both toxicity and permeability.
5 Property-aware molecular refinements by AgentD. (a) Iterative changes improve permeability. (b) An unintended modification leads to improved permeability. (c) An intended modification fails to improve permeability. (d) Iterative changes improve both toxicity and permeability.CC BY · PubMed Central
6 Property-aware molecular refinement results. (a) Proportion of molecules with improved, declined, or unchanged permeability (logPapp). (b) Boxplot of logPapp for entries showing improvement. (c) Molecular refinement patterns for molecules with improved permeability. (d) QED distribution shifts across iterations (vanilla GPT-4o indicates refinement solely through direct queries to GPT-4o). (e) Counts of molecules satisfying empirical drug-likeness rules (definitions in Methods). (f) Fraction of molecules modified for permeability; “Analysis failed” indicates unresolved substructure differences by the substructure algorithm. (g) Functional-group frequencies in input vs refined molecules across iterations (input = input for refinement; refined = postrefinement outputs).
6 Property-aware molecular refinement results. (a) Proportion of molecules with improved, declined, or unchanged permeability (logPapp). (b) Boxplot of logPapp for entries showing improvement. (c) Molecular refinement patterns for molecules with improved permeability. (d) QED distribution shifts across iterations (vanilla GPT-4o indicates refinement solely through direct queries to GPT-4o). (e) Counts of molecules satisfying empirical drug-likeness rules (definitions in Methods). (f) Fraction of molecules modified for permeability; “Analysis failed” indicates unresolved substructure differences by the substructure algorithm. (g) Functional-group frequencies in input vs refined molecules across iterations (input = input for refinement; refined = postrefinement outputs).CC BY · PubMed Central
7 Protein–ligand structure generation and evaluation. (a) A representative 3D complex predicted by Boltz-2, with estimated IC50 and inhibitor probability. (b) Radar plot showing empirical rule-based evaluation. Green dotted lines indicate the thresholds for each rule, while the purple solid line represents the properties of the selected molecule. See Methods and Table S4 for criteria.
7 Protein–ligand structure generation and evaluation. (a) A representative 3D complex predicted by Boltz-2, with estimated IC50 and inhibitor probability. (b) Radar plot showing empirical rule-based evaluation. Green dotted lines indicate the thresholds for each rule, while the purple solid line represents the properties of the selected molecule. See Methods and Table S4 for criteria.CC BY · PubMed Central
8 Comparison of AgentD performance across different language models. (a) Distribution of QED values before and after two iterations of property-aware molecular refinement for AgentD powered by GPT-4o, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and DeepSeek-Chat. (b) Histogram showing the number of molecules passing empirical lead- and drug-like rules. (c–e) Tanimoto similarity between the original and updated SMILES for the top five most frequently targeted weakness properties for AgentD powered by GPT-4o (c), Claude-3.7-Sonnet (d), and DeepSeek-Chat (e).
8 Comparison of AgentD performance across different language models. (a) Distribution of QED values before and after two iterations of property-aware molecular refinement for AgentD powered by GPT-4o, Claude-3.7-Sonnet, and DeepSeek-Chat. (b) Histogram showing the number of molecules passing empirical lead- and drug-like rules. (c–e) Tanimoto similarity between the original and updated SMILES for the top five most frequently targeted weakness properties for AgentD powered by GPT-4o (c), Claude-3.7-Sonnet (d), and DeepSeek-Chat (e).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 69

  1. 10.1038/nrd3078 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1038/d41573-024-00068-6 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/s41591-022-02160-z · DOI
  4. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-1128(199601)16:1<3::AID-MED1>3.0.CO;2-6 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s10822-013-9672-4 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1007/s40484-019-0172-y · DOI
  7. 10.1002/jcc.21334 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1007/s12551-016-0247-1 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00274 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1897/01-171 · DOI
  11. 10.1038/s41573-023-00832-0 · DOI
  12. 10.1073/pnas.0408930102 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/1873-3468.14076 · DOI
  14. 10.1021/acs.jctc.4c00316 · DOI
  15. Badrinarayanan, S.; Magar, R.; Antony, A.; Meda, R. S.; Farimani, A. B. MOFGPT: Generative Design of Metal-Organic Frameworks using Language Models. 2025; https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.00198. · DOI
  16. 10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c02398 · DOI
  17. 10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c02507 · DOI
  18. 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01443 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/s41392-023-01381-z · DOI
  20. Jin, W.; Barzilay, R.; Jaakkola, T. Junction Tree Variational Autoencoder for Molecular Graph Generation. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. 2018; pp 2323–2332.
  21. Cao, N. D.; Kipf, T. MolGAN: An implicit generative model for small molecular graphs. 2022; https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.11973. · arXiv
  22. Peng, X.; Guan, J.; Liu, Q.; Ma, J. MolDiff: Addressing the Atom-Bond Inconsistency Problem in 3D Molecule Diffusion Generation . 2023; https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07508. · arXiv
  23. 10.1093/nar/gkab255 · DOI
  24. 10.1039/C7SC02664A · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1186/s13321-024-00846-9 · DOI
  26. 10.4155/fmc-2019-0307 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/j.1476-5381.2010.01127.x · DOI · Paper page
  28. Sinha, S.; Vohora, D. In Pharmaceutical Medicine and Translational Clinical Research ; Vohora, D., Singh, G., Eds. Academic Press: Boston, 2018; pp 19–32. · DOI
  29. Lu, C.; Lu, C.; Lange, R. T.; Foerster, J.; Clune, J.; Ha, D. The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06292. · arXiv
  30. 10.1038/s42256-024-00832-8 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Jadhav, Y.; Farimani, A. B. Large Language Model Agent as a Mechanical Designer . 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.17525. · arXiv
  32. Jadhav, Y.; Pak, P.; Farimani, A. B. LLM-3D Print: Large Language Models To Monitor and Control 3D Printing . 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.14307. · DOI
  33. Chaudhari, A.; Ock, J.; Barati Farimani, A. Modular Large Language Model Agents for Multi-Task Computational Materials Science. 2025;10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-zkn81-v2. · DOI
  34. Ansari, M.; Watchorn, J.; Brown, C. E.; Brown, J. S. dZiner: Rational Inverse Design of Materials with AI Agents . 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03963. · arXiv
  35. 10.1021/acsomega.4c08408 · DOI
  36. 10.1038/s43588-025-00849-y · DOI
  37. 10.1093/nar/gku989 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1093/nar/gkr777 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00915 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1186/s13321-024-00812-5 · DOI
  41. 10.1038/s41467-024-51672-4 · DOI
  42. 10.1093/nar/gkae254 · DOI
  43. Meda, R. S.; Farimani, A. BAPULM: Binding Affinity Prediction using Language Models. 2024; https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.04150. · arXiv
  44. Wohlwend, J.; Corso, G.; Passaro, S.; Reveiz, M.; Leidal, K.; Swiderski, W.; Portnoi, T.; Chinn, I.; Silterra, J.; Jaakkola, T.; Barzilay, R. Boltz-1 Democratizing Biomolecular Interaction Modeling . 2024; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/20/2024.11.19.624167. · DOI
  45. Passaro, S.; Corso, G.; Wohlwend, J.; Reveiz, M.; Thaler, S.; Somnath, V. R.; Getz, N.; Portnoi, T.; Roy, J.; Stark, H.; Kwabi-Addo, D.; Beaini, D.; Jaakkola, T.; Barzilay, R. Boltz-2: Towards Accurate and Efficient Binding Affinity Prediction. 2025. · DOI
  46. 10.1038/s41420-022-01009-1 · DOI
  47. 10.1038/s41416-019-0573-8 · DOI
  48. Beltagy, I.; Lo, K.; Cohan, A. SciBERT: A pretrained language model for scientific text. 2019. · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.1186/s13321-018-0258-y · DOI
  50. 10.1038/nchem.1243 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/S0169-409X(00)00129-0 · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.1021/jm020017n · DOI · Paper page
  53. 10.1021/cc9800071 · DOI
  54. 10.1021/ci010366a · DOI
  55. DeepSeek-AI, DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning. 2025; https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948. · arXiv
  56. 10.1021/ci9800211 · DOI
  57. 10.1186/s13321-015-0069-3 · DOI
  58. 10.1002/cphc.200900270 · DOI
  59. Radford, A.; Narasimhan, K. Improving Language Understanding by Generative Pre-Training. 2018; https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:49313245.
  60. 10.1002/cmdc.200600155 · DOI
  61. 10.1016/j.drudis.2019.03.015 · DOI
  62. 10.1038/nrd1032 · DOI
  63. 10.1038/nrd2445 · DOI · Paper page
  64. 10.48550/arXiv.2007.06225 · DOI
  65. Wang B., 2023, Nature Reviews Chemistry, 7, 681
  66. 10.1016/0006-2952(73)90196-2 · DOI · Paper page
  67. 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.12.003 · DOI
  68. 10.1162/neco.1989.1.2.270 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Vaswani A., 2017, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.

Metadata

Authors
Ock, J., Meda, R. S., Badrinarayanan, S., Aluru, N. S., Chandrasekhar, A., & Barati Farimani, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
  • Department of Mechanical Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2026-02-09
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
2055-2068
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
OpenAlex
W7128440866
Cited by
5
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
18.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
Keywords
LLM agents, computational drug discovery, retrieval-augmented generation, molecular generation, quantum electrodynamics, Boltz-2, binding affinity prediction, ADMET properties
MeSH terms
Large Language Models, Ligands, Programming Languages, Proteins, Drug Discovery

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review